Gould v. Taco Bell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that restaurant owner’s negligent failure to protect patron could not be compared to assailant’s intentional conduct
• reasoning that “the intentional acts of a third party cannot be compared with the negligent acts of a defendant whose duty it is to protect the plaintiff from the intentional acts committed by the third party”
• allowing punitive damages for wanton conduct when a restaurant manager refused to intervene or call police when two patrons were being beaten
• in patron's action against restaurant for injuries resulting from third party's intentional assault, fault of third-party patron cannot be compared with negligence of restaurant
• restaurant owner’s negligent failure to protect patron from assault could not be compared to assailant’s intentional conduct
• business had duty to protect invitees from known danger of criminal assault, and could not reduce its fault by intentional act of assailant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).